lol Dreadmantic - look at it like this:

There is no concrete evidence to say that global warming is DIRECTLY attributable to 'green-house gas emissions', and yet it IS scientifically feasible. Therefore, we are working on the assumption that we must reduce our carbon emissions in order to 'save the planet' - even though, historically, the warming up of the planet is something that Earth goes through as part of it's natural cycle (ie, hot planet - ice age - hot planet - ice age, etc).
My theory - yes, reducing carbon emissions is obviously a good thing, but not a necessary thing (ie, it won't make a great deal of difference inthe end - might buy us a few more years)

It's the same with global terrorism.
The governments will argue that terrorists have the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction, therefore they work on the assumption that terrorists WILL use weapons of mass destruction - even though the reality is that terrorists have NOT got weapons of mass destruction at their disposal -ie, the whole premise of going to war in Iraq was 'justified' because of probable threat.

Or, you are guilty of the crime, just because you have the capacity to commit the crime, even if everything suggests that you won't commit the crime.

I've probably confused the issue even further lmfaoo
I'll see if I can find a more coherent explaination lol

One moment please....